Influence of moderate prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis with paradoxically reduced gradients against the background of reduced stroke volume after aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis: retrospective comparative study

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the impact of moderate prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term results after aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis with paradoxically reduced gradients against the background of a reduced stroke volume of the left ventricle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 88 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis meeting the criteria: paradoxically reduced gradients against the background of a reduced stroke volume of the left ventricle. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 (n=42, mean age 67±4 years) with paradoxically reduced gradients against the background of reduced stroke volume of the left ventricle, with a moderate patient–prosthesis mismatch; Group 2 (n=46, mean age 68±6 years) with paradoxically reduced gradients against the background of reduced stroke volume of the left ventricle, without patient–prosthesis discrepancy. All patients underwent transthoracic echocardiographic evaluation.

RESULTS: The average follow-up period was 84 (quarterly interval 75±98) months, during the follow-up period 35 (40%) deaths were registered. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality: 2 (4.7%) and 2 (4.3%), respectively (p=0.2). In the long-term follow-up period, there was a significant difference in survival and hospitalization rates for exacerbation of heart failure between patients with and without patient–prosthesis mismatch: 46 and 71%, 37 and 72%, respectively (p <0.001). In the long-term follow-up period, patients with patient–prosthesis mismatch showed a trend towards slower regression of left ventricle mass and left atrial volume, as well as a slower recovery of global longitudinal deformation of the left ventricle and exercise tolerance compared with patients without patient–prosthesis mismatch. There were no significant differences in the incidence of stroke (90% and 91%; p=0.7). According to the results of Cox regression, the left ventricular stroke volume index and the aortic valve effective orifice area index were independent predictors of lethal events and the risk of hospitalization for exacerbation of heart failure.

CONCLUSION: Moderate patient–prosthesis mismatch in patients with paradoxically reduced gradients associated with reduced left ventricular stroke volume is independently associated with increased mortality and increased hospitalization for exacerbations of heart failure.

About the authors

Vladlen V. Bazylev

Federal Center of Cardiovascular Surgery

Email: cardio-penza@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6089-9722
SPIN-code: 3153-8026

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Penza

Ruslan M. Babukov

Federal Center of Cardiovascular Surgery

Author for correspondence.
Email: ruslan.babukov@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7338-9462
SPIN-code: 2393-1170

cardiologist, ultrasound diagnosis doctor

Russian Federation, Penza

Fedor L. Bartosh

Federal Center of Cardiovascular Surgery

Email: fbartosh@km.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5482-3211
SPIN-code: 1107-7579

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Penza

Alena V. Levina

Federal Center of Cardiovascular Surgery

Email: goralen1@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3210-3974
SPIN-code: 1392-0235

ultrasound diagnosis doctor

Russian Federation, Penza

References

  1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(7):561–632. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395
  2. Adda J, Mielot C, Giorgi R, et al. Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite normal ejection fraction is associated with severe left ventricular dysfunction as assessed by speckle-tracking echocardiography: a multicenter study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(1):27–35. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.111.967554
  3. Lancellotti P, Magne J, Donal E, et al. Clinical outcome in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: insights from the new proposed aortic stenosis grading classification. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(3):235–243. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.072
  4. Herrmann HC, Pibarot P, Hueter I, et al. Predictors of mortality and outcomes of therapy in low-flow severe aortic stenosis: a Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial analysis. Circulation. 2013;127(23):2316–2326. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.001290
  5. Bazylev VV, Tungusov DS, Babukov RM, et al. Influence of prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term results in patients after aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis: retrospective single center study. CardioSomatics. 2022;13(3):139–147. (In Russ). doi: 10.17816/CS87618
  6. Pibarot P, Honos GN, Durand LG, Dumesnil JG. The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on aortic bioprosthetic valve hemodynamic performance and patient clinical status. Can J Cardiol. 1996;12(4):379–387.
  7. Rao V, Jamieson WR, Ivanov J, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2000;102(19 Suppl 3):III5–III9. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.102.suppl_3.iii-5
  8. Sá MP, Jacquemyn X, Van den Eynde J, et al. Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Individual Patient Data. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;16(3):298–310. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2022.07.013
  9. Baumgartner H Chair, Hung J Co-Chair, Bermejo J, et al. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;18(3):254–275. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jew335
  10. Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17(6):589–590. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jew025
  11. VARC-3 WRITING COMMITTEE; Généreux P., Piazza N., et al. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(19):1825–1857. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa799
  12. Hachicha Z, Dumesnil J, Bogaty P, Pibarot P. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation. 2007;115(22):2856–2864. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.668681
  13. Dahl JS, Eleid MF, Pislaru SV, et al. Development of paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Heart. 2015;101(13):1015–1023. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306838
  14. Galian-Gay L, Escalona Silva RA, Teixidó-Turà G, et al. Prognosis of Paradoxical Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Severe, Non-critical Form, With Surgical Treatment Benefits. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:852–954. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.852954
  15. Dweck MR, Boon NA, Newby DE. Calcific aortic stenosis: a disease of the valve and the myocardium. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(19):1854–1863. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.093
  16. Mohty D, Magne J, Deltreuil M, et al. Outcome and impact of surgery in paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: a cardiac catheterization study. Circulation. 2013;128(11 Suppl 1):235–242. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000031
  17. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58(1):20–24. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.58.1.20
  18. Mohty D, Boulogne C, Magne J, et al. Prevalence and long-term outcome of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2014;130(11 Suppl 1):25–31. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.007819
  19. Mahjoub H, Mathieu P, Larose É, et al. Determinants of aortic bioprosthetic valve calcification assessed by multidetector CT. Heart. 2015;101(6):472–477. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306445
  20. Flameng W, Herregods MC, Vercalsteren M, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 2010;121(19):2123–2129. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.901272
  21. Freitas-Ferraz AB, Nombela-Franco L, Urena M, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis: Incidence and predictors of treatment futility. Int J Cardiol. 2020;316:57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.04.036
  22. Puri R, Iung B, Cohen DJ, Rodés-Cabau J. TAVI or No TAVI: identifying patients unlikely to benefit from transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(28):2217–2225. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv756
  23. Maes F, Boulif J, Piérard S, et al. Natural history of paradoxical low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(4):714–722. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.113.001695
  24. Parikh R, Goodman AL, Barr T, et al. Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: Incorporation of left ventricular systolic function and stroke volume index. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(6):1558.e1–1566.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.03.008
  25. O'Gara PT, Shah PB, Sun YP. Paradoxical Low Flow Aortic Stenosis: More Differences Between Men and Women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(16):1910–1912. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.026
  26. Okuno T, Corpataux N, Spano G, et al. True-severe stenosis in paradoxical low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis: outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2021;7(4):366–377. doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab010

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Freedom from lethality (Kaplan–Meier analysis). Note (here and in Fig. 2–4). НПП — patient–prosthetic mismatch.

Download (90KB)
3. Fig. 2. Freedom from stroke (Kaplan–Meier analysis).

Download (90KB)
4. Fig. 3. Freedom from re-hospitalization for exacerbation of chronic heart failure (Kaplan–Meier analysis).

Download (93KB)
5. Fig. 4. Freedom from structurally degenerative changes in a biological prosthesis (Kaplan–Meier analysis).

Download (81KB)

Copyright (c) 2023 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies